Newsletter

Southern Strategy - How terms like States Rights are used as racist code words to garner the racist southern vote

When a politician says the term 'States Rights' to an all white crowd in the deep south it is thinly veiled code word for racism. It basically says 'hey all you racists out there, I'm a racist too, and if you elect me, I'll be sure to do what I can to perpetuate the institution of racist policies as long I as I can.'
That's exactly what Ronald Reagan did when he kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980. Reagan even kicked it up a notch, by holding his presidential campaign kick-off in Philadelphia, Mississippi (which was Trent Lott's idea btw, if that tells you anything). What, you may ask, is the significance of that city? It was where the famous murders of three civil rights workers occurred in 1964. Did Regan denounce those murders or mention them in any way in that speech? Absolutely not. He instead told a nearly all white crowd that he believes in 'states' rights'. It was a chilling message to send to black Americans everywhere (indeed to all non-racist Americans who may have been paying attention). It was an incredibly racist move on his part, but it was also political genius. It was a way to woo the southern democratic vote (dixie-crats) over to the Republican party. That transformation was what allowed the Republican party to grow into what it is today from its virtual irrelevancy at that time. It's not so easy to come right out and call Reagan a racist, but his policy speaks for itself. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and he refused to denounce the racist apartheid policies of South Africa when virually the entire rest of the world did. And the choice of location for his presidential kick-off speech, Wow. That takes the cake. Not since the fifties could you come right out and publicly state your racism while running for political office; you had to switch to using phrases like 'states' rights' to say it. Ronald Reagan may not have stated it overtly; that would have been political suicide in 1980, but he did state it nonetheless.
You may say that the words 'states rights', 'interposition' and 'nullification' are the words of our founding fathers, and that it's not fair to lump them together and to tie them so simply to racism. Well, first of all the founding fathers did own slaves, did they not? Also, the only time where the term 'states rights' gained a widespread popularity was in the civil rights days, when Jim Crow laws were challenged at the federal level. When the tea baggers recite these same phrases today, it's safe to say that every racist in the crowd (and most people with a memory of the recent past) instantly recognize what the sentiment of that statement means. If that association is not what is intended, then so be it, but they are ignorant to think that nobody will call them out on the association of that phrase to its recent racist roots. After all, that was only a few decades ago, hardly 'ancient history' and not nearly as irrelevant as the racist Republican apologists will argue.
You will hear right wingers argue that the term 'states' rights' is just a way to tell the federal government to get off their backs and to not oppress them with unsound fiscal policies. That sounds fine, and I will join their call to end the privatized Federal Reserve Banking system which has us taxpayers on a debt treadmill (too bad Republicans once again are completely contradicting their own arguments on this as well) but when that sentiment comes from representatives from Republican 'Red' states, it is laughable. At the same time they cry 'Socialism', they are ignoring the facts about what socialism is. Basically it means you receive more than you contribute. The funny thing about that, is that of the states that receive more from the federal government than they contribute, 84% of those states are Republican 'Red' states. (Ok, Texas, you got a free pass on this one) This is socialism plain and simple, but to this small factual detail, those on the right are silent. I can't bother to be surprised though, as most Republicans are a walking contradiction when it comes to what they say (simplified jingoism and name calling), and what political agendas their elected officials support (the support of the super rich at the expense of everybody else).
Some people say that we'll never be able to get over the horrors of the past, if we keep bringing them up and re-opening the wounds before they can heal. That make sense, but at the same time, if we ignore the past and don't learn from it, we'll be doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. Letting the Republican leadership get away with its four-decade-long history of race-bating is a mistake we should not allow to continue.